Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

**rparmar** · 05-08-2011, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by crossover37

My current lenses aren't that bad and I can focus on getting better as a photographer.

Good answer. Have fun!

hcarvalhoalves · 05-08-2011, 02:44 PM

Comparing the K-x's noise on high ISO to K-7's is not fair, as the K-x's sensor is from a different crop. If I'm not wrong, they used a brand new Sony CMOS on the K-x (by the time of the release), while the K-7 uses a tad older Samsung one. So, they behave differently.

K-7 still reproduces beautiful colors under ISO 800 in my opinion. But anything above ISO 1600 isn't fair to compare.

People here will say the K-7 is amazing and bodies don't matter... but of course technology evolves and it's starting to show it's age. Being able to shoot in high ISO opens a whole new world of possibilities, so you don't have to rely on strobes, tripods or super-expensive fast zooms.

JHD · 05-08-2011, 03:37 PM

Yes, it is all about high ISO. When the next body comes out with 2 more stops, people will despise the K-5 for its poor performance because everything is relative.

So imagine what happens when Pentax releases a body with dramatically improved AF! Imagine a K-3 with Nikon like AF speed and tracking plus considerably more dynamic range. Who will still praise the poor pathetic performance of the K-5?

Here today, gone tomorrow.

rawr · 05-08-2011, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Here today, gone tomorrow.

I dunno. Not all bodies are disposables. Some bodies are classics, because they hit the spot in some way with their features, performance or design, or because they marked some sort of new phase in technology or the market. For film Pentax, the MX, the LX and even the Pentax ME-F spring to mind as classics.

The K5 might be edging into classic territory, as may the 645D, I think. But only time will tell. Few bodies become 'instant' classics.

jstevewhite · 05-08-2011, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by rawr

I dunno. Not all bodies are disposables. Some bodies are classics, because they hit the spot in some way with their features, performance or design, or because they marked some sort of new phase in technology or the market. For film Pentax, the MX, the LX and even the Pentax ME-F spring to mind as classics.

The K5 might be edging into classic territory, as may the 645D, I think. But only time will tell. Few bodies become 'instant' classics.

It may be that there is some "good enough" category for digital that has a threshold the K-5 has crossed, but digital *is* a different animal. A film camera could always produce the same image as any other camera if you put the same film in it and the same glass on the front. Obviously a digital camera can't make that claim.

OTOH, many consider the SX-70 a "classic" camera, and it's certainly not capable of producing images of current film quality

You might be right, but I wouldn't bet a large sum of money on it.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 05-08-2011, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by crossover37

I shoot RAW so I thought the NR doesn't matter.

I use Lightroom 3.4 and the noise reduction is great but still some detail gets lost.

Some said the 43mm f1.9 isn't great for portrait work. Would others agree??

*** Here are some comparison images.

The first two images are K7 images - ISO 1600

The second images are Kx images - ISO 1600

No noise reduction applied.

Well, the K7 crop is taken from an area that is underexposed and also out of focus. The K-x crop is slightly unfocused too, but is much better exposed. Also, the K-7 is a higher resolution camera - you should scale its images to the size of the K-x shots and then compare 100% crops if you want to be fair. So, of course the K-x comes out better in these shots. For a fair comparison, try the same scene, try exposing to the right, and scale down the K-7 image to the resolution of the K-x image - you'll find a much smaller difference, at least up to 1600.

JHD · 05-08-2011, 11:23 PM

For almost a whole year now I've owned both the K-x and the K-7. Having compared RAW samples without any NR from both cameras, the difference isn't as vast as K-x enthusiasts would have us to believe. Of course it’s nice for some folks to fantasize that their entry level camera is better than a serious semi professional camera, but that is not the case. To such I say dream on if you must.

rawr · 05-09-2011, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by JHD

To such I say dream on if you must.

I don't think there's as much Kx vs K7 conflict in here as you suggest. Everyone is just having a conversation. Every K-x user knows the K7's body rocks and it has great IQ, every K7 user knows the Kx also has great IQ and does a little bit better than the K7 at high ISO.

We went through all of this over a year ago on this forum.

yusuf · 05-09-2011, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by crossover37

After comparing images between the Kx and K7 again I realized the K7 dynamic range is pretty bad.

What's your take at low iso/daylight?

Originally posted by crossover37:

I also tried the Sigma 50-150mm and realized I couldn't keep it steady enough on the Kx.

Just trying to understand, are you suggesting that holding that large lens with k-x is an issue compared to k-7?

Originally posted by crossover37:

What did I decide on ultimately? I decided to buy the K5. I just bought it from BH Photo.

Awesome. Congrats. Will look forward to your 3-way comparison

Designosophy · 05-09-2011, 07:00 AM

Is there any scenario in which you keep both the K-x and the K-7?

I upgraded from the K-x to the K-7, and I love the K-7. I feel that the contrast and color that I generally get out of RAW images is superior to what I got out of the K-x. However, I definitely see the increased noise in the K-7, particularly in shadows (when ISO is over 400) and in high ISO, over 1600. I sometimes wish I had just kept the K-x for use in low-light situations where high ISO is needed. Plus, there is the benefit of having a backup or secondary camera. You could put one lens on the K-x and the other on the K-7 and switch back and forth quickly.

Edit: Here is the thread about K-7 vs K-x noise that I started when I had both cameras:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/135393-k-7-k-x-low...omparison.html

audiobomber · 05-09-2011, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Designosophy

Edit: Here is the thread about K-7 vs K-x noise that I started when I had both cameras:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/135393-k-7-k-x-low...omparison.html

There's no mention of noise reduction in your samples. The only way to test is to turn NR off on both cameras. Is that what you did?

Designosophy · 05-09-2011, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

There's no mention of noise reduction in your samples. The only way to test is to turn NR off on bot cameras. Is that what you did?

Yes. However, I remember reading somewhere that the K-7 uses NR at high ISO even when NR it is turned off. I think it was DXO Labs.

JeffJS · 05-09-2011, 07:33 AM

There's no way to turn off the NR on the K7. You can adjust its level or use a shooting condition that doesn't invoke it but directly turning it off, on the K7 (and the K20), not an option. I would suspect the same is true for the Kx. With the K5, the option to completely shut it off has returned.

yeatzee · 05-09-2011, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Designosophy

Yes. However, I remember reading somewhere that the K-7 uses NR at high ISO even when NR it is turned off. I think it was DXO Labs.

Wasn't it the K-x that did that?

By the way, whats with the removal of chroma noise in the k-x photos but not in the K-7's?

edit: the above answered it

Designosophy · 05-09-2011, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Wasn't it the K-x that did that?

You could be right - I am not sure. Really, I don't care all that much. I don't need a scientific 1 to 1 double-blind test to tell me that the K-x has better dynamic range and less noise than the K-7.

Edit: Where did JeffJS's post come from? When I posted, yeatzee's post was there, but JeffJS's post was not!

05-09-2011, 07:00 AM	#70
Designosophy Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,137	Is there any scenario in which you keep both the K-x and the K-7? I upgraded from the K-x to the K-7, and I love the K-7. I feel that the contrast and color that I generally get out of RAW images is superior to what I got out of the K-x. However, I definitely see the increased noise in the K-7, particularly in shadows (when ISO is over 400) and in high ISO, over 1600. I sometimes wish I had just kept the K-x for use in low-light situations where high ISO is needed. Plus, there is the benefit of having a backup or secondary camera. You could put one lens on the K-x and the other on the K-7 and switch back and forth quickly. Edit: Here is the thread about K-7 vs K-x noise that I started when I had both cameras: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/135393-k-7-k-x-low...omparison.html Last edited by Designosophy; 05-09-2011 at 07:09 AM.

05-09-2011, 07:18 AM	#71
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Designosophy Edit: Here is the thread about K-7 vs K-x noise that I started when I had both cameras: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/135393-k-7-k-x-low...omparison.html There's no mention of noise reduction in your samples. The only way to test is to turn NR off on both cameras. Is that what you did? Last edited by audiobomber; 05-09-2011 at 07:39 AM.

05-09-2011, 07:45 AM	#75
Designosophy Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,137	Originally posted by yeatzee Wasn't it the K-x that did that? You could be right - I am not sure. Really, I don't care all that much. I don't need a scientific 1 to 1 double-blind test to tell me that the K-x has better dynamic range and less noise than the K-7. Edit: Where did JeffJS's post come from? When I posted, yeatzee's post was there, but JeffJS's post was not! Last edited by Designosophy; 05-09-2011 at 07:48 AM. Reason: Confusion

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thought experiment with depth of field...want to help?	arpaagent	Photographic Technique	9	09-18-2009 07:08 AM
a thought	benjikan	General Talk	3	07-01-2009 12:23 AM
Just a worrying thought	Torphoto	Photographic Technique	10	06-03-2009 02:46 AM
Wow! I thought I had bought a good camera system	racinsince55	General Talk	11	06-13-2008 04:19 PM

05-08-2011, 05:13 AM	#61
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Originally posted by crossover37 My current lenses aren't that bad and I can focus on getting better as a photographer. Good answer. Have fun!

05-08-2011, 02:44 PM	#62
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Comparing the K-x's noise on high ISO to K-7's is not fair, as the K-x's sensor is from a different crop. If I'm not wrong, they used a brand new Sony CMOS on the K-x (by the time of the release), while the K-7 uses a tad older Samsung one. So, they behave differently. K-7 still reproduces beautiful colors under ISO 800 in my opinion. But anything above ISO 1600 isn't fair to compare. People here will say the K-7 is amazing and bodies don't matter... but of course technology evolves and it's starting to show it's age. Being able to shoot in high ISO opens a whole new world of possibilities, so you don't have to rely on strobes, tripods or super-expensive fast zooms.

05-08-2011, 03:37 PM	#63
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Yes, it is all about high ISO. When the next body comes out with 2 more stops, people will despise the K-5 for its poor performance because everything is relative. So imagine what happens when Pentax releases a body with dramatically improved AF! Imagine a K-3 with Nikon like AF speed and tracking plus considerably more dynamic range. Who will still praise the poor pathetic performance of the K-5? Here today, gone tomorrow.

05-08-2011, 04:07 PM	#64
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by JHD Here today, gone tomorrow. I dunno. Not all bodies are disposables. Some bodies are classics, because they hit the spot in some way with their features, performance or design, or because they marked some sort of new phase in technology or the market. For film Pentax, the MX, the LX and even the Pentax ME-F spring to mind as classics. The K5 might be edging into classic territory, as may the 645D, I think. But only time will tell. Few bodies become 'instant' classics.

05-08-2011, 06:52 PM	#65
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by rawr I dunno. Not all bodies are disposables. Some bodies are classics, because they hit the spot in some way with their features, performance or design, or because they marked some sort of new phase in technology or the market. For film Pentax, the MX, the LX and even the Pentax ME-F spring to mind as classics. The K5 might be edging into classic territory, as may the 645D, I think. But only time will tell. Few bodies become 'instant' classics. It may be that there is some "good enough" category for digital that has a threshold the K-5 has crossed, but digital is a different animal. A film camera could always produce the same image as any other camera if you put the same film in it and the same glass on the front. Obviously a digital camera can't make that claim. OTOH, many consider the SX-70 a "classic" camera, and it's certainly not capable of producing images of current film quality You might be right, but I wouldn't bet a large sum of money on it.

05-08-2011, 07:59 PM	#66
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by crossover37 I shoot RAW so I thought the NR doesn't matter. I use Lightroom 3.4 and the noise reduction is great but still some detail gets lost. Some said the 43mm f1.9 isn't great for portrait work. Would others agree?? *** Here are some comparison images. The first two images are K7 images - ISO 1600 The second images are Kx images - ISO 1600 No noise reduction applied. Well, the K7 crop is taken from an area that is underexposed and also out of focus. The K-x crop is slightly unfocused too, but is much better exposed. Also, the K-7 is a higher resolution camera - you should scale its images to the size of the K-x shots and then compare 100% crops if you want to be fair. So, of course the K-x comes out better in these shots. For a fair comparison, try the same scene, try exposing to the right, and scale down the K-7 image to the resolution of the K-x image - you'll find a much smaller difference, at least up to 1600.

05-08-2011, 11:23 PM	#67
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	For almost a whole year now I've owned both the K-x and the K-7. Having compared RAW samples without any NR from both cameras, the difference isn't as vast as K-x enthusiasts would have us to believe. Of course it’s nice for some folks to fantasize that their entry level camera is better than a serious semi professional camera, but that is not the case. To such I say dream on if you must.

05-09-2011, 01:09 AM	#68
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by JHD To such I say dream on if you must. I don't think there's as much Kx vs K7 conflict in here as you suggest. Everyone is just having a conversation. Every K-x user knows the K7's body rocks and it has great IQ, every K7 user knows the Kx also has great IQ and does a little bit better than the K7 at high ISO. We went through all of this over a year ago on this forum.

05-09-2011, 01:58 AM	#69
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	Originally posted by crossover37 After comparing images between the Kx and K7 again I realized the K7 dynamic range is pretty bad. What's your take at low iso/daylight? Originally posted by crossover37: I also tried the Sigma 50-150mm and realized I couldn't keep it steady enough on the Kx. Just trying to understand, are you suggesting that holding that large lens with k-x is an issue compared to k-7? Originally posted by crossover37: What did I decide on ultimately? I decided to buy the K5. I just bought it from BH Photo. Awesome. Congrats. Will look forward to your 3-way comparison

05-09-2011, 07:29 AM	#72
Designosophy Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,137	Originally posted by audiobomber There's no mention of noise reduction in your samples. The only way to test is to turn NR off on bot cameras. Is that what you did? Yes. However, I remember reading somewhere that the K-7 uses NR at high ISO even when NR it is turned off. I think it was DXO Labs.

05-09-2011, 07:33 AM	#73
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	There's no way to turn off the NR on the K7. You can adjust its level or use a shooting condition that doesn't invoke it but directly turning it off, on the K7 (and the K20), not an option. I would suspect the same is true for the Kx. With the K5, the option to completely shut it off has returned.

05-09-2011, 07:35 AM	#74
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Designosophy Yes. However, I remember reading somewhere that the K-7 uses NR at high ISO even when NR it is turned off. I think it was DXO Labs. Wasn't it the K-x that did that? By the way, whats with the removal of chroma noise in the k-x photos but not in the K-7's? edit: the above answered it

So I bought the K7...thought at first it was great, then I used it in the field...

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!